Davina had asked some good questions of which I will again attempt to answer:

dav: thankee. but that's exactly the thing. what gives the usa any right to use just any sort of excuse to invade another country albeit there are other issues to deal with...?

There is no right. What gives Sadaam the right to kill his own people, what gives the US the right to invade another country, what gives Russia the right to invade its own land, what gives serbs the right to kill korats, what gives Pakistan the right to claim Kashmir nor India for that matter? Nothing... rights are not concerned in macropolitics, it never had been. What gave Brittain and France the right to dictate the treaty of Versailles to Germany that started the second world war? The fact that Germans were to blame? The fact that Endgland once invaded Germany, the fact that they both were part of the Roman Empire? of every random circumstance to action in History, the right has nothing to do with it. Does someone have the right to protect its home? Yes he/She does, this could be applied to countries. It is therefore an excuse worth using: attack for defense. Been practiced for years and years.

dav: and why do i feel that this is just a stupid scheme to make everyone feel better because they can't find osama bin laden?

Bin of the Laden is not so much a detached issue. When one superpower is attacked, which it was, it has the right to defend itself from further attach in venerability. The two are linked in the sense of power over the middle east and peopable attacks against Israel. And it is not about feeling better, till now, they hadn't found Sadaam... if they stillhaven't it would be the same issue... why haven't they.

dav: what does hussain have to do w anything anymore? his dad already invaded once. why this need to invade again? hmph.

Because he was producing long range missiles and building up his army, contrary to trade agreements set after the first Gulf War. If a ex-con breaks the law, he will be thrown back into prison.

dav: AND because such an excuse (womd) was used, he's pulled tony blair down now because everyone in england wants to know where they are... sheesh.

Tony Blair willingly went into war with the US to strengthen ties between the nations. France chose otherwise, its a choice. On top of this, the benefits of such an alliance would include a share of wealth from the oil and other spoils. Brittian were therefore followers as they have no power of their own, able to make a mark and strategic alliance with an army a hundredfold larger.

dav: speaking of the next president... george w bush or howard dean? or do you have someone else in mind??

Whatever monkey they elect, the outcome would run the same. Clinton made it big because he was good at public speaking and he was riding on the boom in economy. Perhaps he created demand, we hsall only find out in a few years time but every president had had their flaws. This monkey included.

This obviously is a complex matter stemming back to the first world war and the start of Muslim fundamentalism. But that is another history lesson some other day.

The political world is about the distribution of power. Power comes in many forms; namely, Force and Asset. The struggle for power in the history of the world has been due to the need for assets or access to assets, for example, the former Soviet union was in Afghanistan because they needed an access to the sea and to oil. The reson China will not let go of tibet is because control of the himalayas are a large advantage point if war is to break out. and so on and so forth. Later on, as seen in the cold war and many others, power was displayed by force by presenting weaponary and technology, the so-called bullies of the world. There are also incidences which appear to be random violence such as the hutus and tutsies, serbia and kossovo, Indonesia and East Timore. But this is due to a case of, "you have what I want, I can have what you have if you are not there". And then religeous wars such as Gaza, Ireland and the likes. I assure you that none of these have to do with God but for reasons of access to power or the display of power.

In any given situation there is Good and Bad. Therefore in todays political status of nations, there are good ones, bad ones and followers. We could assume the the world assumes that advanced countries such as Australia, New Zeland, France, England, Spain, Italy, Canada etc.. are indeed good. The likes of Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, Palestine, Serbia, Indonesia, Pakistan, China and Afghanistan are considered not so good. Then followers are countries who follow larger decision makers because it will reap financial and political benefits.. Japan, Korea, Philippines etc... Any country can become an agressor, a threat, an ally, a follower or an enemy at any given situation or time.

Then there are the powerful nations which normally boils down to who has the most powerful weaponry. The powerhouses of the past, Russia, USA, Germany, Brittain have long diminished and alliances are now put in place. The political situation is therefore segregated into continents and threats. The middle east is considered one massive powerhouse, USA is still considered one, China - one huge mama to an extent, Russia and North Korea.

The attack on Iraq was all about weapons of mass destruction not because they were produced, but because of its potential. More importantly, the war on Iraq was about oil and the power by-product that comes from oil.

Iraq was producing long-range missiles, something the UN scientists did find. We also know that Sadaam was experimenting with bio-chemical weaponry, Anthrax and the likes was found and was cultivated in laboritories across Iraq. Understanding that nuclear science has been around for ages and the techonology is not only easy to produce but arms trade is widely available. It would deem cheaper to purchase a nuclear warhead rather than to produce one, because afterall, there is only need for a single one. Placing two and two together, with the production of long-range missiles and research into biochemical warfare, you have yourself an easy weapon of mass destruction.

Now the target it not so much the USA directly. The inevitability of that would be the destruction of Iraq and many of its Arab allies. But moreso on Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons. This is for sure. But they have been allowed to keep them because it is the last fortress of non-arab states within the middle east. If it was, say, nuked, or even prestented by the threat of being nuked, then the control over the middle east would therefore fall upon the hands of the arab states, namely the ones engaged in warfare. This would benefit Iraq tremendously and create many friends to engage trade. The power in the middle east then shifts from a scattered and disoriented force to a tighter unit that control, obove all, most of the worlds supply of energy.

This obviously cannot be allowed because that sort of power would induce serious reprocussions on every nation of the world, therefore affecting economies, effecting power. So why did USa have to "liberate" the country, because it liberates them, along with the rest of the world of threat of oil crises and a undesirable powerhouse, the middle east, who and lets face it.. are not my choice when it comes to nations to reckon with.

So there you have it, the reasons for war on Iraq or the liberation of Iraq. Unfortunately Monkey Bush is not very good in explinations and is trying to play the hero from the wrong political standpoint. The real statement should have been, "look bub, Iraq has produced long ranged missiles and has also done major research on biochemical weaponry, I don't know about you but I don't like the sound of that and we are taking them out and making sure it wont happen again".

What a wonderful Christmas present for the US. Not only did they capture Sadaam yesterday, they did not find him in some barricade with high-tech equipment and hundreds of troops, planning for his next term in office, they found him in a hole large enough to fit the fallen dictator, with a vent tube and comoed by bricks and sand (so stupid of his dictatorship-liking comrades as the house this hole was in was in mint condition). The bearded Maadas (spelt backwards) was in poor shape and well bearded.. I somehow do not think Osama (his acclaimed mate) would be hiding as such. I guess there is more honour taking a religeous standpoint than a dicatorship.

As an analyst, I am deemed to explore the probable impact capturing Maadas this way would have on the world economy and expecially for Hong Kong.

Iraq:
Sadaam has proven that he is indeed powerless and the rest of the deranged forces he has, driving along 100 meters outside of the US base camp and launching grenades to increase the number of post-war casualties and deaths, have no guidence and sturcture and therefore no power. Bad Boy's "peoples" would see their fallen leader as a scruffy hole-hiding powerless prisoner and see that there is no point to get him freed nor any hope in any of his past regimes.

This means that a handover to a Iraqi government will be more swift and less costly. This also means that the likes of Japan, Australia etc.. who have agreed to deploy troops to the country may not have to spend billions to do so. France, on the otherhand is still skiing the Alps. The Iraqi people are happy because the strife is over and they can get on with things and they will probrably agree to some sort of deal with America on oil trade.

Economy:
Needless to say the saving on deploying troops to the middle east would save tons of money, the America have had a victory and in a sense, many across the world support this victory even though they may not have supported the war. The American economy came to a standstill as the war was carried out, the dollar kept dropping and there was continuous spending on the war. Then we can now predict a halt in the strengtheing of the Pound, Yen and Euro and an increase in consumption of US dollars. US dollars, low, good time to buy.

As the US are congradulated for their victory, the world can get on with business at ease and do things it would normally do without the uncertainties attached to war. Invesments will increase, spending will increase, buying debt will also increase. The future oil agreement will also aid in US' bounce back, covering much of the expenditure on liberating Iraq.

For good old 852, this means that we also will enjoy an increase in wealth as our pegged dollar value also will increase. The property market has already recovered from its SARS days and stedily bouncing back. Though JP Morgan and HSBC collectively fired 30% of their world wide Associate level staff, they will regret that action as the enconomy will see a gradual need for spending. Unfortunate but too bad. Unemployment will decrease which will allow for a more flexible budget for the Tung administration to spend on bringing in business and invesment to Hong Kong. Hopefully none of the repeat of the Harbour Fest fiasco.

It is now Christmas time and acros the world, one of the many thanks people will give to God is the capture of Sadaam. Personally, I was never against the war. I am against war but if it is inevitable such as this one, then I could not be repulsed by it. Therefore, I will rejoice to the fact that the bloodshed will soon come to rest and that economies will come out of depression. With wealthier naitons, there are possibilities to re-distribute funds to countries in need. Amen.